DOCSLIB.ORG

Kokkinakis and the Narratives of Proper and Improper Proselytizing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kokkinakis and the Narratives of Proper and Improper Proselytizing Religion Religion and Human Rights 12 (2017) 99–111 Human Rights brill.com/rhrs Kokkinakis and the Narratives of Proper and Improper Proselytizing Brett G. Scharffs Rex E. Lee Chair and Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School, Provo, Utah, United States Abstract This article explores how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) distinguishes between proper and improper proselytizing. It points out the importance of the com- peting factual narratives and how the way the facts are presented can determine how the Court responds to the proselytizing activity. Keywords Kokkinakis – proselytizing – proselyting – proper proselyting – improper proselytism – European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – Article 9 1 Introduction One of the central moves by the European Court of Human Rights in Kokkinakis v. Greece is the distinction the Court (Court or ECtHR) makes between proper and improper proselytizing, a distinction that has bedevilled the Freedom of Religion and Belief (FoRB) jurisprudence of the Court over the subsequent twenty-five years. This is remarkable because the distinction did not exist in the Greek statute prohibiting “proselytism” or the underlying Greek Constitutional prohibition of proselytism. The distinction between proper and improper proselytizing has been important not only in subsequent cases directly involv- ing missionary activities, but also in cases involving potent religious symbols such as the Islamic headscarf and Christian crucifix. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi �0.��63/�87�03�8-���3��Downloaded56 from Brill.com10/01/2021 07:55:47AM via free access 100 Scharffs This paper will focus on the influence of this hermeneutic move in two pri- mary ways. First, the distinction encourages the development of what I will call the competing “Proper Proselyting Narrative” and the “Improper Proselytism Counter-Narrative.”1 The Proper Proselyting Narrative sees missionary activity as a normal and even central element of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, closely related to the core Article 9 right to change one’s religion or be- lief. The Improper Proselytism Counter-Narrative sees missionary activity as a dark and dangerous intrusion upon the religious freedom of adherents of ma- jority religions, as often coercive, and a looming violation of the (imagined?) right to be left alone.2 These two narratives assert themselves as competing tellings of what actually happened in the case—two alternative sets of facts.3 Second, these competing narratives also provide the background framework for subsequent cases involving not only direct efforts at proselytizing, but also in cases involving religious symbols that are either said to have, or not have, proselytizing potentials or effects.4 1 See infra, section 3. 2 In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights debates, the Greek delegate expressed his con- cern about proselytizing practices he observed in other countries: ‘Free lodgings, material assistance and a number of other advantages were offered to persons who agreed to belong to one religion or another … [The] danger of such unfair practices was a threat, not only to the minority groups of a given country … but also to the religious majority. While, admit- tedly, every person should be free to accept or reject the religious propaganda to which he was subjected, [he] felt that an end should be put to such unfair competition in the sphere of religion’. U.N. GAOR, 3d. Sess., 127th mtg. U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR, 127, at 393–394 (Statement of Ambassador Alexander Contoumas, Representative of Greece). 3 For years post-modernists have been telling us there is no such thing as “fact,” but in our “post-truth” political moment, the importance of shared understandings of what actually happened when talking about an event that has occurred in the past is widely acknowledged. Post-modernists like Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault and Derrida say, ‘Ideas like those of “reason” and “truth” are the fictions of the Enlightenment. Ideas about humans and society which we assume to be permanent truths change over time’. Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism (Oxford; Blackwell, 1996), p. 135. After the White House press secretary accused the news media of reporting falsehoods about the Trump and Obama inaugura- tion crowds and their relative size, Kellyanne Conway, a counsellor to President Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that ‘the White House had put forth “alternative facts” to ones reported by the news media’. Nicholas Fandos, ‘White House Pushes “Alternative Facts.” Here Are the Real Ones’, The New York Times, 22 January 2017, p. A15. 4 See infra, section 4. Religion and HumanDownloaded Rights from 12Brill.com10/01/2021 (2017) 99–111 07:55:47AM via free access Kokkinakis & the Narratives of Proper & Improper Proselytizing 101 2 Setting the Stage Article 3 of the 1975 Greek Constitution provides, ‘[t]he dominant religion in Greece is that of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church’.5 Article 13 states that, ‘[f]reedom of conscience in religious matters is inviolable’, and guaran- tees the ‘freedom to practise any known religion’, and that the ‘ministers of all known religions shall be subject to the same supervision by the State and to the same obligations to it as those of the dominant religion’.6 For purposes of the Kokkinakis case, the most important Constitutional provision appears in paragraph 2 of Article 13, which states simply, ‘[p]roselytism is prohibited’.7 The Constitution, however, does not define proselytism. Section 4 of a 1938 Greek law makes proselytism a criminal offense,8 and the meaning of proselytism was clarified in a 1939 amendment to the law, which provides: By “proselytism” is meant, in particular, any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persua- sion (eterodoxos), with the aim of undermining those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of his inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naivety.9 5 Greek Constitution of 1975, Art. 3, cited in European Court of Human Rights, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Application No. 14307/88, 25 May 1993, para. 13. The paramount place of the Greek Orthodox Church under the Greek Constitution is evident throughout paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Paragraph one of Article 3 continues, ‘[t]he Greek Orthodox Church, which recognizes as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ, is indissolubly united, doctrinally, with the Great Church of Constantinople and with any other Christian Church in communion with it (omodoxi), immutably observing, like the other Churches, the holy apostolic and synodi- cal canons and the holy traditions…’. Paragraph 2 provides, ‘[t]he ecclesiastical regime in certain regions of the State shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph’. Paragraph 3 provides, ‘the text of the Holy Scriptures is unalterable. No official translation into any other form of language may be made without the prior consent of the Autocephalous Greek Church and the Great Christian Church at Constantinople’. 6 Greek Constitution of 1975, Art. 13. What constitutes a “known” religion is not defined in the Constitution. Article 13, para. 4 also appears to prohibit accommodations of religion and exemptions from laws on account of religion: ‘[n]o one may be exempted from discharg- ing his obligations to the State or refuse to comply with the law by reason of his religious convictions’. 7 Greek Constitution of 1975, Art. 13, para. 2 (cited in Kokkinakis, para. 13). 8 Law no. 1363/1938, sec. 4 (anagastikos nomos) (cited in Kokkinakis, para. 16). 9 Law no. 1672/1939, sec. 2 (cited in Kokkinakis, para. 16). Religion and Human Rights 12 (2017) 99–111 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 07:55:47AM via free access 102 Scharffs This prohibition on both ‘direct or indirect’ attempts to ‘intrude on the reli- gious beliefs’ of another person with the aim of ‘undermining those beliefs’ by ‘taking advantage’ of a listener’s ‘inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naivety’ is the closest the law comes to defining what counts as unlawful proselytism. The provision is noteworthy for its breadth and reach, targeting both ‘direct and indirect’ intrusions on the beliefs of someone who belongs to a different re- ligion (logically, this would include all intrusions, which could mean any effort to persuade). Many aims are impermissible, including any ‘aim of undermin- ing’ another’s beliefs (again, might any effort to persuade another of anything might undermine their beliefs?); any kind of “inducement” (does the promise of “salvation” or “eternal life” count as an inducement? Does feeding the hun- gry or clothing the naked?), or “moral support” (does visiting those in prison constitute impermissible moral support?) or “material assistance” (again, food or clothing?), or “fraud” (do not many religious beliefs appear preposterous to outsiders?), or “taking advantage” of another’s vulnerabilities based upon ‘in- experience, trust, need, low intellect or naïvety’ (what about teaching children, or young adults? What if everyone needs salvation?).10 Mr. Kokkinakis was convicted of proselytism under Section 4, exhausted his domestic appeals, and applied to the ECtHR on the grounds, among others, that his conviction violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.11 10 As Danchin points out, ‘[B]oth the proselytizer and the target of proselytism can advance rights claims based on freedom of religion or beliefs that are in conflict with each other’. Peter G. Danchin, ‘Of Propehts and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law’, Harvard International Law Journal (2008), pp. 250–321, at p. 266. 11 See Kokkinakis, para. 27. The European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 9 provides: ‘1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in com- munity with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christian Understandings of Proselytism David A
    Christian Understandings of Proselytism David A. Kerr ike the chameleon, proselytism displays itself in many who had themselves been strangers (gerim) in Egypt (Deut. L shades of color. The word has different nuances in 10:19). The bulk of Talmudic literature welcomes the proselyte individual languages and among languages. Importantly from into the full fellowship of Israel, subject to the requirements of the point of view of this article, it is used variously among circumcision, baptism, and the offering of sacrifice. Jesus criti­ different sectors of the Christian church. It refers both to the cized what he deemed the Pharisaic tendency of making the transfer of allegiance from one religion to another and to the proselyte a slave to the law (Matt. 23:15). From this it may be transfer of allegiancebetweenchurches. Attitudes to proselytism inferred that the matter of how a proselyte should be incorpo­ are conditioned by political, social, and cultural considerations, rated into Israel was a matter of controversy in Jesus' time. New and responses vary from one church to another, from one culture Testament references to Jewish proselytes among the first Chris­ to another. I attempt here to clarify some of the issues, particu­ tians indicate that they were welcome members of the early larly as they have emerged in Christian thinking through the church (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43).6 The postbiblical histories of both second half of the twentieth century. I argue tha t the hard-sought Judaism and Christianity continued to honor the proselyte until consensus that has emerged within the ecumenical movement more recent times, when, roughly speaking from the eighteenth needs to extend itself further to include new global realities of century, the term came to have the negative connotations we Christianity.1 have noted in English literary usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Kokkinakis at the Grassroots Level
    Religion Religion and Human Rights 12 (2017) 210–222 Human Rights brill.com/rhrs Kokkinakis at the Grassroots Level Effie Fokas1 Principal Investigator, Grassrootsmobilise; Senior Research Fellow, ELIAMEP (Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy) Athens, Greece; Research Associate, Hellenic Observatory, LSE Abstract This contribution considers the impact of Kokkinakis at the grassroots level: to what extent do grassroots level actors know about the case of Kokkinakis and see in it an opportunity to further their own religion-related rights claims? To what extent has the case inspired social actors such as rights activists, cause lawyers or faith group members to mobilise for their own religion-related rights, whether in court, in the halls of govern- ment, or in the streets? Has Kokkinakis left a mark on the individual citizen with con- cerns to do with religious freedoms? These questions are addressed through empirical research conducted on the indirect effects of ECtHR religion-related case law, including Kokkinakis, at the grassroots level in Greece. Keywords indirect effects – proselytism ban – grassroots mobilization – Metaxas laws – Greek Orthodox – European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – freedom of religion or belief 1 This article draws on research conducted under the auspices of the European Research Council-funded Grassrootsmobilise Research Programme (GA No. 338463; see www.grass- rootsmobilise.eu), and while Research Associate of the LSE Hellenic Observatory. I would like to thank Grassrootsmobilise programme manager Alexia Mitsikostas for her invaluable research assistance in preparation of this text; Agis Petalas for his guidance on the relevant Greek legal norms; and Margarita Markoviti for her excellent research which underpins the present text and her helpful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Geography
    Park, C. (2004) Religion and geography. Chapter 17 in Hinnells, J. (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. London: Routledge RELIGION AND GEOGRAPHY Chris Park Lancaster University INTRODUCTION At first sight religion and geography have little in common with one another. Most people interested in the study of religion have little interest in the study of geography, and vice versa. So why include this chapter? The main reason is that some of the many interesting questions about how religion develops, spreads and impacts on people's lives are rooted in geographical factors (what happens where), and they can be studied from a geographical perspective. That few geographers have seized this challenge is puzzling, but it should not detract us from exploring some of the important themes. The central focus of this chapter is on space, place and location - where things happen, and why they happen there. The choice of what material to include and what to leave out, given the space available, is not an easy one. It has been guided mainly by the decision to illustrate the types of studies geographers have engaged in, particularly those which look at spatial patterns and distributions of religion, and at how these change through time. The real value of most geographical studies of religion in is describing spatial patterns, partly because these are often interesting in their own right but also because patterns often suggest processes and causes. Definitions It is important, at the outset, to try and define the two main terms we are using - geography and religion. What do we mean by 'geography'? Many different definitions have been offered in the past, but it will suit our purpose here to simply define geography as "the study of space and place, and of movements between places".
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: an Overview of Their Relationship from the Perspective of Moral Values
    religions Article Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: An Overview of Their Relationship from the Perspective of Moral Values Daniel Buda 1,2 1 Orthodox Theological Faculty, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Theology and Religion, Pretoria University, Pretoria 0002, South Africa Abstract: Orthodox–Evangelical relationships are dominated by proselytism (at least in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union). This is understood as church conversion practiced through unfair means among people who are already Christians, belonging to so-called “historical churches.” However, beyond it, there is a real potential for cooperation using moral values as a starting point. As there is an increasing disagreement between the Orthodox and mainline Protestant on moral values, the Orthodox and Evangelicals might increase their cooperation as they witness traditional values of Christianity. This kind of cooperation might be partially contextual, but it is based on Biblicism, which both Orthodox and Evangelicals share as a core value. As this cooperation, based on shared moral values, certainly has real potential, and has to be used for the good of Christianity, it might also have its limitations. Orthodox Christians and Evangelicals have shared common moral values, but each one of them might interpret the content of these values differently. One of the differences in interpreting and explaining the content of moral values might be given by the different interpretations of what is called church tradition. Citation: Buda, Daniel. 2021. Keywords: orthodox and evangelicals; ecumenical movement; proselytism; World Council of Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: Churches; moral values An Overview of Their Relationship from the Perspective of Moral Values.
    [Show full text]
  • Proselytism and Evangelization: Important Distinctions for Catholic Catechists by Fr
    Proselytism and Evangelization: Important Distinctions for Catholic Catechists by Fr. Leo Walsh, STD Pastor, St. Benedict Parish, Diocese of Fairbanks Certain things in life should never be Griffiths, Arthur J. Schmitt Professor of confused. I was reminded of this Catholic Studies at the University of recently when I bit into what I expected Illinois in Chicago: to be a chocolate chip cookie and We can begin with the now-archaic discovered, to my horror, that it was English noun “proselyte,” a calque actually an oatmeal raisin cookie! In a (rather than a translation) of the Greek similar way, catechists are sometimes prosêlutos and the Latin proselytus. The perplexed by the distinction between Greek noun is derived from the verb “to proselytism and legitimate come” with a prefix meaning “over” or evangelization. They might look similar, “towards,” and so a literal etymological but they are very different realities. rendering of “proselyte” might be “one As teachers of the faith, it is who comes over (from one location to extremely important that we get it right. another).” The term has a biblical use: Confusing the two can have eternal there it always designates a Gentile consequences. This article will explain convert to Judaism, or, more precisely, a the nature of proselytism, starting with Gentile who has begun to observe the the benign origins of the word and then Jewish law. In this case the “coming explaining some of the factors that led over” is from life as a Gentile to (or to negative connotations being towards) life as a Jew. (Paul J.
    [Show full text]
  • Proselytism, Religion, and Ethnification of Politics A
    Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe Volume 17 Issue 5 Article 1 10-1997 Proselytism, Religion, and Ethnification of oliticsP a Sociological Analysis Srdjan Vrcan Law School, University of Split, Croatia Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Vrcan, Srdjan (1997) "Proselytism, Religion, and Ethnification of oliticsP a Sociological Analysis," Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe: Vol. 17 : Iss. 5 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol17/iss5/1 This Article, Exploration, or Report is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROSELYTISM, RELIGION, AND ETHNICIFICATION OF POLITICS A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS By Srdjan Vrcan Dr. Srdjan Vrcan is dean emeritus and professor of sociology emeritus at the Law School, University of Split in Croatia. He is a prolific author and attended numerous scholarly meetings as well as being the recepient of a Fullbright Fellowship. This study was prepared for a project "The Problem of Proselytism" by the Law and Religion Program of Emory University School of Law under a Pew Foundation grant and was delivered at Dresden, Germany, in May 1997. Some preliminary clarifications are needed. They
    [Show full text]
  • A Pentecostal Perspective Cecil M
    Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology Volume 4 | Number 4 Article 4 5-1-1997 Evangelization or Proselytism of Hispanics? A Pentecostal Perspective Cecil M. Robeck Jr. Fuller Theological Seminary Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.usfca.edu/jhlt Part of the Latina/o Studies Commons, and the New Religious Movements Commons Recommended Citation Cecil M. Robeck Jr., "Evangelization or Proselytism of Hispanics? A Pentecostal Perspective," Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology 4:4 (May 1997) 42-64. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology by an authorized editor of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ]HLT Vol. 4:4 (1997) Evangelization or Proselytismof Hispanics? A Pentecostal Perspective1 Cecil M. Robeck Ir. Fuller Theological Seminary Introduction Much has been written on the topic of proselytism in recent years, and depending upon where we find ourselves in the world, the group or groups who are labeled as proselytizers vary. To be sure, proselytism is unworthy to be classed as genuine witness to the gospel. It is a per- version of genuine evangelization. It deserves our mutual condemna- tion. But what is it, exactly? A number of recent studies of the issue suggest that proselytism may occur whenever: 1. Christians do not recognize the genuineness or fullness of eccle- sial claims made by other communities that call themselves Christian and, therefore, attempt to convert the members of other communities into their own ranks.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Minds: Proselytism, Freedom, and the First Amendment Richard W
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2005 Changing Minds: Proselytism, Freedom, and the First Amendment Richard W. Garnett Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard W. Garnett, Changing Minds: Proselytism, Freedom, and the First Amendment, 2 U. St. Thomas L. J. 453 (2004-2005). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/435 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE CHANGING MINDS: PROSELYTISM, FREEDOM, AND THE FIRSTAMENDMENT RICHARD W. GARNETr* 1. Not long ago, a man armed only with a Bible jumped into the lion's den at a zoo in Taiwan, proclaiming, "Jesus will save you!" One big cat, it turned out, was hard hearted, and it attacked the man, but "zoo workers drove it off with water hoses and tranquilizer guns."' Whatever this mod- ern-day amalgam of Paul the Apostle and Daniel the Prophet lacked in pru- dence, he left little room to doubt his zealous determination to take up and fulfill Christ's charges to his disciples: "Fear not" and "teach ye all na- tions." 2 And here is another item for the creative-evangelism file, taken from a recent issue of the Wall Street
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Proselytism and the Illusion World Peace: the Disservice of World Religions
    Journal of Religion and Human Relations, Volume 13 No. 1, 2021 Religious Proselytism and the Illusion World Peace: The Disservice of World Religions Chika J. B. Gabriel Okpalike https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jrhr.v13i1.10 Abstract This work is constructed on the hypothesis that religious proselytism is the tool in the hands of the three major monotheistic religions with which they canvass/campaign for membership recruitment. It identifies and explores different modes which proselytism has taken among the practitioners of the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and understands proselytism as the source and cause of a world divided along religious lines and which may not be healed if that practice persists. The work adopts the methods of analysis of written data and focus on groups. Keywords: Proselytism, Proselytization, World Peace, Religion of Humanity, Religious Domination Introduction It was Judaism which birthed the idea of a God who chose some people over above others. Yet affrighted by the possibility of a non- fulfilment or confronted by the vagaries and vicissitudes of the fulfilment of the promises that such conviction held in a material history which has so disappointed them, the religion sought that fulfilment in an after-life as reward. Thus was born, the idea of heaven or Aeon. Set apart by the faith of Abraham1, established in the promise of Isaac2 and chosen in the preference of Jacob3, the Jews 1Gen. 12:2 2 Gen. 18:1-15 208 Okpalike: Religious Proselytism and the Illusion World Peace: The Disservice of World Religions always understood themselves as a special race, distinguished, chosen and consecrated by God4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Proselytism Under the Fundamental Agreement and International Law
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 47 Issue 2 Winter 1998 Article 6 1998 The Freedom of Proselytism Under the Fundamental Agreement and International Law Moshe Hirsch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Moshe Hirsch, The Freedom of Proselytism Under the Fundamental Agreement and International Law, 47 Cath. U. L. Rev. 407 (1998). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss2/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FREEDOM OF PROSELYTISM UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Moshe Hirsch* Religions interact with one another in various ways, however, prosely- tism unquestionably is one of the most sensitive topics in inter-religious affairs. With respect to the relationship between Jews and Christians, Eugene Fisher described proselytism as "[o]ne of the most ancient and communities."' disastrous.., tensions between the Jewish and Christian Conflicting views regarding proselytism also gave rise to considerable tensions between other religions.2 In light of these opposing perspec- tives, it is not surprising that the shaping of international norms in this sphere has become a contentious issue in the international arena. I. CONVERSION AND PROSELYTISM: INTER-RELIGIOUS AND INTER- PERSONAL DIMENSIONS The processes of proselytism and conversion may be examined on two levels: (1) the inter-religious level, in other words, the interaction be- tween two religious groups, and (2) the inter-personal level, that is, the interaction between the proselytizer and the potential proselyte.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Ecclesiology for Proselytism and Evangelism
    The Implications of Ecclesiology for Proselytism and Evangelism This essay was prepared by J. Robert Wright for the Theological Conversation on “Evangelism and Christian Formation” sponsored by the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Episcopal Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, 22-25 January 1995, in Delray Beach, Florida. It and was published in The Anglican 25:1 (July 1996). 1. Evangelism The earliest “Evangelist” was Jesus Christ, proclaiming to his fellow Jews that the Kingdom of God is at hand and is being inaugurated in his own ministry. Jesus proclaimed not so much himself, but God and God’s Kingdom. The second stage in early Christian evangelism was that of Jesus’ early followers, as they too spoke to the Jews, seeking to persuade them that Jesus was the Messiah for whom they looked. Both Jesus and his early followers seem to have been largely unsuccessful in their own day, if their attempts are measured statistically by the numbers of their converts, and by around A.D. 135 Jewish Christianity had practically died out. A third stage in early Christian evangelism, beginning perhaps as early as 50 A.D., was that of Christians addressing, not so much the Jews, as the Gentiles of the Greco-Roman world. The principal evangelist at this stage, and its most powerful leader, was probably St. Paul. By this time, however, there had been a gradual shift in the proclamation or emphasis, from “Jesus’ good news about God and God’s Kingdom” to “the church’s good news about Jesus.” By this time, one might say, the proclaimer has become the proclamation, the Evangelist has become the Evangel.
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Overview of Outreach and Conversion in Judaism
    AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH AND CONVERSION IN JUDAISM ROBERT M. SELTZER, PH.D. Professor of History, Hunter College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York There have been much more conversion and outreach to Judaism in the past than the conventional picture implies. The lack of interest that has been predominant since the late Middle Ages is only a limited phase in a long history of cycles of isolation and out­ reach. We may now be entering into a new historic era of outreach. he notion of conversion to Judaism broader, open-ended meaning, viewed in T that has predominated in the last the context of changing definitions of the few centuries is that it must be passive boundaries and the gateways between the and even reluctant: if people make theit Jewish people and the laigei social woflds way to Judaism by themselves and in utter it occupied in vaiious etas. Even befoie sincetity and reject the warning concerning the inception of foimal conversion, thete the lowly status of the Jewish people in was a more drawn-out mode of assimilating the world, those people ate to be gtaciously non-Israelites into the people of Isiael. accepted. But there is evidence that thete Ruth's insistence that the home of hei late was fat more conveision and outreach to husband's mothei was to become het tiue Judaism in the past than the conventional home and that the place wheie Naomi pictuie implies and that the withdiawn, was to be buiied was the place wheie she disinterested appioach is only a mote lecent wanted to be bulled was accompanied by phase in a much longei histoiy (Seltzet, her fervent assertion that she desired mem­ 1988).
    [Show full text]